1 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 2025:CGHC:22807-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1184 of 2021 Bhola Sahu S/o Ghanaram Sahu Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Murum Khadan, Pathan Mohalla, Police Station Sarkanda , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, J 16/07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.17 10:16:46 +0530 2 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 appearing on behalf of the State/respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.08.2021 passed by the Court of learned Upper Sessions Judge/ First F.T.S.C. (POCSO) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh in Special S.T. No. 05/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 506- II of the IPC R. I. For 05 years & fine of Rupees 250/- in default of fine Addl. R.I. for 01 year Under Section 455 of IPC R. I. For 07 years & fine of Rupees 500/- in default of fine Addl. R.I. for 01 year Under Section 5 (m)/6 of the POCSO Life Imprisonment & fine of Rupees 500/- in default of fine Addl. R.I. for 05 years till natural death All the sentences are to be run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.12.2019, at about 7.00 am the grandmother (dadi) of the victim, aged 09 years, left her at her nani’s house and went to work as usual. On returning home from work at 1.30 pm, the victim came crying and told that she was lying down at her nani's house at that time, Bhola Sahu of the neighborhood came inside the house with a knife and threatened to kill her, if she told anyone or shouted, made her lie down on the cot and did bad things with her and left the knife there and ran away. On the same date, on the basis of verbal 3 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 complaint by the victim's grandmother against Bhola Sahu, FIR was registered and the criminal law was set into motion. During course of investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/4) was got prepared. Victim got medically examined vide Report Ex.P/17. Accused was apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 23/11/2020 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the statement of the victim is filled with contradictions and omissions, thus not worthy of being given credence. He further submits that conviction cannot be based on guesswork. He submits that victim is a child witness, thus, not to be believed in the absence of 4 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 corroboration and prosecution story is filled with doubts. He also submits that no adverse finding was given in the FSL report, benefit whereof should be extended to the accused in the alternate he would pray for reduction of sentence imposed by learned Trial court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 9. The first question for consideration is whether the victim is minor/ below the age of 18 years or not? 10. PW-1 stated that the victim is her grand-daughter and is aged about 9 years and her date of birth is 22.04.2010 and at the time of incident the victim was studying in Class- 4th which is corroborated by the statement of parents of the victim i.e. PW-4 & PW-6. They have also stated the age of the victim is 9 years and her DOB is 22.04.2010. Further, Ex.P-12 Dakhil Khariz register is seized in which the DOB of the victim is mentioned as 22.04.2010, which is proved by PW-8 Principal of Bilaspur Public School. Statement of these witnesses remains totally 5 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 unchallenged during cross-examination. Therefore, for want of challenge and proved materials available on record, we do not have any hesitation in holding that the victim on the date of incident being below the age of 18 years, is 'child' within the meaning of section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. 11. The next question for consideration would come, whether the appellant committed such heinous act with the Victim or not? 12. PW-2, the victim herself deposed in her statement that at that time of incident she was at her grandmother's house (nani) and they had gone to work and she was alone at home in the afternoon. At that time the accused Bhola Sahu came inside her house and did bad things with her and when she screamed, the accused pressed her mouth and took out a knife and put it on her neck and told that if she scream and tell anyone, he will kill her. She also stated that the accused was at her house for about half an hour and she was bleeding also. She further stated that after a while, when someone knocked on the door, the accused ran away from the front door. After this, her friend, who lives nearby came there and the victim told her about the incident and she took her to her grandmother's (dadi) house. 13. PW1 Grandmother of the victim stated that when she came back from work the victim was crying and when she asked the victim why she was crying, the victim told that when she was sleeping at her grandmother's (nani) house, the accused Bhola Sahu came 6 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 inside the house and threatened her by showing a knife and pressed her mouth and did bad things with her. 14. PW-5 stated that grandmother of victim is her sister and her house is near the house of the victim. She further stated that on the day of the incident, the victim did not go to school due to ill health and at about 1:30 pm, the victim's grandmother came to her to get the keys. At the same time, two-three children brought the victim with them. She further stated that the victim was crying a lot and was scared. On asking the victim, she told that the accused entered the house, showed her a knife and said that if she told anyone or screamed, he would kill her. The victim also told that the accused took off her leggings and panties and took off his clothes and made her lie down on the cot and raped her. She further stated that they went to the crime scene where a knife was lying on the cot. There were some blood stains as well. 15. PW/11Dr. Aditi Sahgal stated that internal examination of the victim cannot be performed as she was small girl of about 9 years. However, she stated that some thing was forcefully inserted in the genitals of the victim. She further stated that definite opinion regarding sexual intercourse can be given after the FSL report. 16. Medical Examination of the appellants/accused was conducted by Dr. Sunil Pendro (PW-12) and submitted a report vide Ex.P/18 and opined that there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant/accused cannot perform sexual intercourse. The 7 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 doctor categorically stated in the MLC (Ex.P/18) that ‘as per my examination I found nothing any abnormal finding that I can say the person is not able to perform intercourse’. In FSL report vide Ex.P-26, is positive and semen stains and human sperm were found. 17. It is settled principle that if the testimony of the victim is trustworthy and totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely implicate the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her/his evidence. 18. It has also become almost settled position of law that conviction can be based on the solitary statement of victim, provided same inspires confidence of the court. 19. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the 8 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more recise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match 9 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 20. Also, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 SCC 550 held as under:- “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’) similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony 10 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” 21. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that from the statement of victim PW-2 that in the afternoon the accused Bhola Sahu came inside her house and did bad things with her and when she screamed, the accused pressed her mouth and took out a knife and put it on her neck and told that if she scream and tell anyone, he will kill her she further stated that at the time of the incident she was bleeding also. 22. In the result, when we look at the evidence of victim, we find that no case is made out for reduction of jail sentence imposed by the Trial Court and particularly considering the fact that the victim has categorically stated that the accused has committed bad things with her and also threatened her with dire consequences and 11 CRA No. 1184 of 2021 particularly looking to the FSL report (Ex.P/42) wherein semen stains and human sperm were found, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentenced as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 23. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 24. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $. Bhilwar